While it's mostly true that athletic programs as a whole are not profitable, it's also true that a majority of football and men's basketball programs are profitable[1]:
> > Between 50 and 60 percent of football and men’s basketball programs have reported net generated revenues (surpluses) for each of the nine years reported, while the dollar amount has increased slightly but steadily each year. (3.6)
> It seems uncertain that they actually use the money to fund education.
They don't. They use the money to fund sports programs that aren't profitable, like women's basketball. Women's basketball, in particular, cost FBS schools (in aggregate) about $1.8 million in FY 2014 (though ice hockey isn't far behind at $1.4 million).
Note that I'm not making a judgement here: I don't think we should eliminate women's basketball. But if we're going to argue about what actually costs the school money, we should at least be honest about it.
> Not to mention the fact that they basically exploit the athletes, who aren't always even given a quality education in return.
No qualms there. The NCAA's treatment of athletes is asinine and I'm quite certain we'll view this as a black mark in the history of sports.
1: http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2015%20Division%20I%...